Talk:Bill Clinton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bill Clinton article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Good article Bill Clinton has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

This article is part of WikiProject Arkansas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arkansas.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Bill Clinton is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Bill Clinton as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Dutch or Hebrew language Wikipedias.
Peer review This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Socsci.


Contents

[edit] Intro is too short

The intro this article is too short. ~ UBeR 22:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In line with the opening introductions of other US presidents articles, I have done a partial rewrite of the opening introduction as well as a new paragraph on his time as President. In the first paragraph I noted his significant role as a new democrat and a third way creator. In the new paragraph I initially summarised his main policy and legislation. This is then followed by mention of significant events - domestic such as oklahoma city bombings and his scandals - Whitewater and Lewinsky, being the most prominent. I then finished the paragraph with info on world events such as Bosnia and his unsuccessful attempt to bring peace to the middle east. I have also edited the last paragraph of the intro making his recent work more clear, as well as commenting on his autobiography. I tried to be objective as well. LordHarris 23:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I've kept the part about Clinton's autobiography and humanitarian work untouched. I have shortened the summary of the presidency because it reads like a list and is just too long. The "New Democrat" concept is too complicated to be explained in the intro and should be left for the body of the article. The most significant events in Clinton's presidency was the changing world order and the economic prosperity in the United States. The scandals are really just the background to the impeachment, which is the historically significant bit. IMO, this strikes a better balance between too short and too long, and keeps the intro neutral with plain facts. I'll see if I can work in the legislation and policies without sounding too much like a list. KeL 00:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on the list, good job at the new era wording, it was too long and it does now strike a balance between short and long. Though I dont agree with the "new democrat concept" being too complicated. I think it is one of the major aspects of Clintons life and in lots of books e.g. Clinton Wars, the natural, it is commented heavily by the authors and should be part of the article introduction.

BTW I thought the discussion page was getting long, have created new archive, but have left this one as recent on the talk page. Also there was nothing on oklahoma city bombings on the main article page. If anyone has any reference sources can someone please write a sentance or two somewhere in the main article. As I recall this had a large effect on Clintons presidency and he made a very public speech in the aftermath, at the service held afterwards. LordHarris 01:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read the New Democrat addition again and I now agree with you. It's a very important aspect of Clinton's presidency and it's what made him successful. Well done. KeL 01:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Indicating that Clinton was the third-youngest U.S. president and then naming the two younger presidents is correct but begs for fuller edification. May I suggest something on the order: At 46, Clinton was the third-youngest person to serve as president; after President Theodore Roosevelt, age 42, and President John F. Kennedy, age 43. --Curiouscdngeorge 23:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be too much detail for the introduction, and the information is already available in List of United States presidents by age at ascension to office. And with all due respect, I think the prose of your sentence is terribly inelegant and awkward-sounding. The point is that Clinton is the third-youngest president; that's enough for this article. KeL 00:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correct Style for Title of Office

Upper case, lower case, which case is capitalized ?

A number of well-meaning wordsmiths are firm about two aspects of capitalization. First, if it refers to the first letter of the first word of any given sentence, then choose upper case. Secondly, if it refers to a title of office, then choose upper case (for that first letter).

For instance, as examples, they might cite:

1a. John Kennedy was the most beloved President of the United States.

2a. Lorraine Hargrave failed in his bid to be Governor of California.

3a. Historians agree that George Washington was the first President of the United States, Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States; but, they do not agree who was greater.

Each instance of capitalizaton, re reasons of title, is incorrect.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book, Associated Press Manual of Style, Chicago Manual of Style, and Guardian Manual of Style, simply being a title is insufficient cause for upper case.

The title must be intimately united to the name of the individual, such that, it constitutes their name and not solely a description of their occupation or function.

So that, in the same examples, these authorities would cite:

1b. John Kennedy was the most beloved president of the United States.

2b. Lorraine Hargrave failed in his bid to be governor of California.

3b. Historians agree that George Washington was the first president of the United States, Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States; but, they do not agree who was greater.

More examples of correct and incorrect usage:

1a. Only when President (correct) Johnson . . .

1b. Only when president (incorrect) Johnson . . .

2a. We'll take this to Governor (correct) Libby, the 3rd governor (correct) of Nevada, . . .

2b. We'll take this to governor (incorrect) Libby, the 3rd Governor (incorrect) of Nevada, . . .

Only when the title is tight with the name and preceeds it, is it capitalized - all other instances, you don't.

Note, I don't hold this because my daddy, mommy, or 3rd-grade teacher, told me so; likewise, I don't hold this because I heard or read "something", "somewhere", about the need to capitalize titles.

Look up any specific American president, English prime minister, or Big Cheese governor or premier, in a reputable reference (as those mentioned), to prove my thinking wrong.

If my understanding is incorrect, please demonstrate in what manner - with a supporting reference - that I can access and verify via the library. Thanks. --Curiouscdngeorge 23:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we have been through this before, and it really is getting boring. " The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun." The formal name of the President of the United States is the President of the United States. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Titles. So there you go, I'm reverting your edits. Orangemarlin 23:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style quotes: Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president." So that, "President Clinton . . ." and "Clinton was the American president" are each correct. However, "Clinton was the American President" or "Clinton was the 42nd American President" are not correct [Correct: "Clinton was the 42nd American president."] So, according to the Wikipedia Style Manual (and others cited above) the correct reading is: "Clinton was the 42nd American president." Thanks for the reference, I'm glad I'm the one that read it. -Curiouscdngeorge 23:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you failed to read WP:CIVIL. Please read the quote. The formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. You didn't edit something generic like "Clinton was the 42nd American president" where the capitalization is completely correct. You change, "President of the United States" to "president of the United States." Yeah, I can read. And please be civil. Orangemarlin 00:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Orangemarlin is correct. The relevent part from MOS:CL reads The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. Hence: "Hirohito was Emperor of Japan." Similarly, "Louis XVI was the French king" but "Louis XVI was King of France", King of France being a title in that context. KeL 15:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Orangemarlin, for your contribution; but, there are certain statements you made which are in error. I changed "Clinton was the 42nd American President", which is incorrect, to "Clinton was the 42nd American president", which is correct (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style) [it is an error to state I edited otherwise]. With respect to WP:CIVIL, you'll note I thanked you for your reference and stated my satisfaction in being the one that read it. Telling me "yeah, I can read" is something I assumed, but I'm glad for your discovery. But, as KeL's contribution proves, there is a wide margin between being able to read and understanding what one reads. --Curiouscdngeorge 00:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As for reading and understanding, apparently you missed out on WP:CIVIL. Orangemarlin 03:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, you did not make that change. Please review this [Dif]. So please, I can read, I tell the truth, and I know about what I speak. Orangemarlin 03:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clinton and Freemasonry

Though it has a citation, the Freemasonry reference in the "Early Years" section seems forced. I am considering removing it as non-notable. Wanted to post this for discussion before doing so.K. Scott Bailey 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmn, I might have to delete this comment of yours. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 05:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
So, no defense of why it actually is notable, just a childish threat? If I don't hear a cogent defense of why Clinton not being a Freemason is notable, I will be removing it, your threats aside.K. Scott Bailey 16:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I view deleting comments without notice as childish. That's right, I'm talking about your actions. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

<removed indents>Actually Kscottbailey, you have no right whatsoever to censor anything posted in a discussion section. Please see the following:

Editing others' comments is generally not allowed. Exceptions are:

  • If you have their permission
  • Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details
  • Removing personal attacks and incivility. Please read WP:ATTACK#Removal_of_text and WP:CIVIL#Removing_uncivil_comments before removing anything.
  • Unsigned comments: You are allowed to append —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]). or one of its variants to the end of someone's comment if they have failed to sign it. The form is —The preceding unsigned comment was added by USER NAME OR IP (talk • contribs)., which results in —The preceding unsigned comment was added by USER NAME OR IP (talk • contribs) ..
  • Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (If the contribution introduces a new topic.

You'd have a difficult case to make that any of those 4 items were violated. So, please quit deleting or censoring anything written here. Orangemarlin 00:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The commentary that was deleted had nothing to do with the discussion of the article, and just had more to do with some gutter-sniping at the subject matter, so I'd say that it is highly inappropriate for the talk page. If Kscottbailey hadn't removed it, I would have done so myself. Tarc 16:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I second arguments of Tarc above. LordHarris 18:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe. But isn't that just censoring, because it relies on your two OPINIONS of the matter? Orangemarlin 18:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Opinion is trifling in the face of the law of the land. Wikipedia policies are the law of the land; end of discussion. I bet if you handed those two the Constitution they'd defile it as if it were a Word document. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images comment

Some of the images need a fair use rationale, or since its showing him in his presidential duties, the license can be changed so a fur is not required. --Nehrams2020 00:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paula Jones

The main article reads that Jones lawsuit against Clinton was dismissed. This is completely untrue. Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anchovy1 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 9 March 2007 UTC.

It is quite true, actually. The lawsuit was dismissed, Jones appealed. During the appeals process, the settlement offer was made and accepted. But initially, the case was dismissed. Tarc 21:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes that is true Here is a good source about its actual dismissal:Onlinew News LordHarris 00:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

talk 16 March 2007

All facts thus far are correct, it is how you look at the facts to know that you all are correct. There was a forced dismissal, that should have never occurred and did. The inevitable was the award and that was something Clinton and his advisors knew they would have to pay prior to the forced dismissal. It was a matter of record that coerced the situations that we finally see. Politics, corruption and bad judgments on the voters part most of the time, when we elect the wrong persons to office.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bigsis (talk • contribs).
I dont see how that comment is relative to anything to do with wikipedia or this article.LordHarris 15:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Not only is the above comment by Bigsis unsourced and substantially irrelevant, it also a matter of POV. I wonder the same thing about how George Bush got elected twice! Orangemarlin 18:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cuban prisoners

The article states

his first term also was fraught with difficulties, including an unpopular motor vehicle tax and citizens' anger over the escape of Cuban prisoners (from the Mariel boatlift)

Were these prisoners detained for criminal acts, or refugees awaiting process? This needs clarifying because the Marielitos overwhelmingly belonged to the latter group.-- Zleitzen(talk) 16:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,981365-3,00.html LordHarris 17:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
As I thought, they were refugees, thanks for the link Lord Harris. The change has been made.-- Zleitzen(talk) 06:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worst President

this is one of the worst presidents in US history (in my opinion the worst since Truman) many of the problems e.g. Iraq that are being dealt with by the present government are the result of actions and inaction during the Clinton years, and the article does nothing, nothing to explain why this is the case, there is no drawing together of the multitude of political, sexual and financial scandals that beset the Clinton regime in any meaningful way that can relate to policy issues. while i see that there must be attributable sources surely there has been enuf academic and journalistic interest in clintons problems so that there is something to quote out there on some meaningful hypotheses/theories about why and how things did get so messed up (sometimes only manifesting after he had gone - eg Iraq) Richy-rik 04:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course you are entitled to your view on Clinton but unless you have reputable sources: Wikipedia:Reliable sources to support your views you then making changes to the talk page based on opinion isnt appropriate. Just to note as well - biographies of living people need to conform to neutral points of view. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Furthermore unless you are actually discussing changes to the article, using reputable sources etc, than the talk page isnt a place for your own personal dislikes or likes of the President. Talk pages are not a platform for your personal views: Wikipedia:Talk page. LordHarris 10:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did Clinton "lie?"

The article says the Clinton "lied under oath about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky". This is not technically true and is the source of much debate, about which there is no uniform consensus. The sentence should read "allegedly lied under oath" or "was accused of lying under oath."

Hmmm...Its been a while, but I seem to remember Clinton saying, under oath, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" but later admitted that he did have sexual relations with her. The House impeached him for it, but the Senate did not convict him. While it was not determined in a court of law that he had committed perjury, its generally accepted that he did lie about it, but that the Senate didn't feel that it would warrant his removal from office. How then is this not technically true?--Mbc362 04:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
You "seem to remember" incorrectly. That statement was made to the press, not under oath. It is certainly NOT "generally accepted" that he lied under oath. His sworn testimony was technically truthful under the legal definitions Jones' own lawyers proposed for his testimony. If you want to discuss this topic you should, as a start, know something about it. 204.128.192.8 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Please excuse me for not remembering correctly something that occurred a decade ago. Now, if you want to discuss anything on Wikipedia, you should probably read up on the ground rules, namely WP:CIVIL.--Mbc362 01:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately for Clinton he did lie under oath about his sexual relations so the sentance is technically correct. However what was and still is open to interpretation is a.) whether his lie constituted an impeachable offence and b.) because it was in regards to his private life (although part of his time in the White House, it did not interfer with his actual job or execuation of official duties). So UserMbc362 is correct - although he had committed perjury (for which I believe he was disbarred as a practicising lawyer) the senate did not warrant that the perjury (or 3 other charges) were sufficient for impeachment. LordHarris 09:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Wrong and wrong. First, by the legal definitions Jones' lawyers requested for his testimony, he did NOT lie about his relations with Lewinsky. Second, he was NOT disbarred for committing perjury as you "believe", but for unspecified "serious misconduct" under the rules of the Arkansas Bar. If you want to discuss this topic you should, as a start, know something about it. 204.128.192.8 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" was not said under oath, and I believe that the House Managers never actually specified any perjurious words in the official charges. Clinton was charged with perjury in front of the grand jury, which was where he ADMITTED his affair. Carlo 20:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed and thats what it currently reads in the article. Though just to make clear, he lied (therefore permitted perjury) before the Grand Jury (which was recored on video and later used in the senate hearings), but later admitted the relationship at a later date. A good book on the whole event is Sidney Blumenthals Clinton Wars - lots of references if someone is interested in addding. LordHarris 21:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually he never could be convicted of perjury in a court since he would have to be proven to knowingly lie. His answer was technically accurate, although deceptive. There is a great deal of debate as to the actual fact of perjury(s). There was actually more than one count that he was charged with, it wasn't just the one statement regarding sexual relations with that woman. Remember all the fuss about sexual relations and how you define it? Well it was legally defined, and according to that definition, Monica performing oral sex on Clinton did not fit (although it would have if Clinton had performed oral sex on her). While this may seem specious, understand this definition was agreed upon by both parties in the lawsuit before Clinton was asked the question under oath. Ironically, if he had said yes he would have perjured himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.173.2.87 (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/l/Talk%7EBill_Clinton_4489.html"